Tag Archives: Strategy

Google+

It’s supposed to be a place to meet and converse with people from all over who share your interests. Yet, the early adopters were all tech nerds whose main interests were Google products and news, how Android is superior to iOS (it’s not, and I am a massive Google fan)?

Android

My Android sometimes acts buggy or slow, and that never happens on my iPhone or iPad. And I use a Samsung Galaxy S4, the so-called “flagship” of the Android phones.

Over the last year, Android has made some smart moves and improved things quite a bit. But they are forgetting the primary focus of the multi-billion dollar company: the customers.

Make People’s Lives Easier

How can we make this easy enough for a child to use, while still having high-tech abilities? They say Apple is for non-technology people who don’t like to configure and modify their device. But with the exceptions of gadget nerds, users just want the features to work automatically.

Simplicity

I’m a tech geek myself, and I occasionally fiddle around with my Android for fun, but my iPhone actually makes me a more efficient, productive, and organized person.

Bottom Line:Google needs to focus on simplicity and customer experience.

At least that’s how I read the title of this article trending from a legit business site. As I browse the list of words, a majority of my LinkedIn profile and resume.

We didn’t get past that phase, yet. Innovative thinking, and getting that to become the norm in society is still focus number one. It hasn’t been accomplished.

I’m sure there are a few job seekers who took advantage of the trend to get spotted, but of course people are going to try and do that. I shouldn’t have to innovate the word innovation just look legit on my resume.

Innovative businesses, processes, and concepts are what need to be implemented further. Most people still don’t get it.

Other buzzwords I saw on the list: Creative and Strategic.

Once again, this is still the focus. This hasn’t happened in significant amounts. Not creative business models, concepts, or methods of thought. For sure, companies are not focusing more on the strategic side of efforts, such as marketing or operations.

On a Side Note

The writers of the original article don’t understand the concept of “buzz words.” “Buzz words” to me is an exaggerated form of a concept that could be explained simpler.

For Example:

“think outside the box” could be simplified to creative.

Creative can’t be simplified, and it shouldn’t be ignored or discouraged. Some people are, some people aren’t. There are roles for both types in businesses and in society, but it’s an important distinction.

In today’s fast-changing business environment, both managers and individual contributors alike need to have a broad perspective, an awareness of the cultural trends, and business developments shaping the world.

Many managers focus on delivering ‘today’s’ business results, preoccupied with daily responsibilities that they fail to place themselves for long-term success.

In this period of rapid change economically and business wise around the globe, strategy in business is moving away from the basic strategic planning to more of strategic thinking in order to survive the crowded and competitive global environment.

Strategic thinking thus becomes a key competency for leaders and managers responsible for the design and deployment of business and functional strategies. Strategic thinking needs to be at the center of the entire strategic management process, constantly re-evaluating, re-visiting and re-defining mental models of the business. The label strategic planning should be dropped because strategic planning has impeded strategic thinking.

Strategic planning is about analysis while strategic thinking is about synthesis.

Strategic planning means breaking down a goal into steps, designing how the steps may be implemented, and estimating the anticipated consequences of each step.

Strategic thinking is about using intuition and creativity to formulate an integrated perspective, a vision, of where the organization should be heading.

In practical terms, strategic thinking should help to analyze, explore, understand and define a complex situation and then develop planning actions that will bring the greatest possible positive impact towards a pre-defined goal, hence it is justifiable to conclude that strategic planning is subordinate to strategic thinking.

Strategy positions a business in a certain level based on the goals and possible positive changes they intend to achieve. This is why most companies require executives and managers to have a strategic mindset because this obviously sets them from those who think in a conventional manner.

Thinking strategically also helps predict the future of a company. With this it is easier to develop steps on how to get into what has been planned for the future and stay away from paths that may lead to business failure. Moreover, through this kind of thinking, a business is able to become more adaptable to change.

The distinction of strategic planning and strategic thinking therefore leaves many confused on which one to prioritize on. It is a reality in business today that strategic thinking and execution of strategic planning is proving to be a challenge among many leaders. Therefore a clear understanding of the value and the benefits of strategic thinking is indispensable.

One of Two Dream Jobs – Part One

In a “War Room,” either at a huge company or entity of power, where super-complex decisions need immediate solving in high stress scenarios.

I should be sitting at that table…

or in the shadows…

sitting alone…

smoking..

… only appearing at moments of extreme crisis.

The Ideal Scenario

Ryan Gosling’s character of Stephen Meyers in The Ides of March.

I don’t believe he even has a job title, but is essentially running the entire show. He is a combination of an “ideas guy” and a person responsible for making sure those ideas get carried out. He brainstorms half-the-time and runs the operation the rest of it.

He doesn’t care about being the “number 1 guy,” he cares about the operation. He’s willing to let someone else get all the glory, despite being the brains of the operation.

The only person who knows how important he is, is the person he’s providing that function. However, he does have power within the organization. Anything spoken from his lips to any member of staff, and it’s as if the President, himself, spoke it.

The Not-as-Ideal Scenario

Toby Jones’ character of Karl Rove in the film W.

He acted as the President’s secret “ideas guy.”

Although identified as a brilliant, ruthless, and devastating campaign strategist, his role was less involved. He didn’t really communicate with the other group members at all, except to the President, himself.

I’ve read from somewhere (this was referring to the real-life version) that “without Karl Rove, there would be no President George W. Bush.” I am simply making an analogy to the type of relationship that Rove played within the establishment.

I’ve been in both of these types of roles before (obviously not at a presidential level), and they can both work quite well.

Downsides

If the person you’re providing that function for decides to screw you over, they can do so quite easily. Since it’s such a behind-the-scenes type role, it would be much more challenging to find new work.

Archives

Search

In in instant, both people would immediately not just know every thought and action each other has ever had. They would actually have experienced it (as far as they know).

Now, imagine that same technology scaled large enough to “sync” every single person on the planet, for 60 seconds.

Instant Global Awakening.

For geeks, think of:

Telepathy (aka Professor X).

Vulcan Mind Meld.

It’s the same thing, but instead of cool but impossible magic powers (Trust me that would be “Plan A,” but my extensive research of trying to grab the remote control using “The Force,” isn’t looking very promising at the moment.

However, we can invent… and as impossible as this idea sounds, it could be done, with immense R&D, a bottomless pit of money, and a lifetime.

Most (or all) of the people starting the project would never live to see the result, but it would give your life purpose. We’d be building heaven, but never get to go…

What about our kids?

…and theirs?

Randomly thought of that… the same effect is happening with the gradual extinction of privacy, and our ability to instantly communicate.

It’d still be faster, but then you run into:

Is it wrong to force everyone to do something once, if it means putting an end to so much pain? Who gets to make that decision?